Mallarte v. Court of Appeals
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Nicolas and Ramona Gopiao leased an apartment to Vicente Mallarte on a month-to-month basis. The lease agreement explicitly prohibited subleasing or transferring the premises without the written consent of the lessors, with violation being a ground for ejectment. Procedural History: During an inspection in June 1979, the lessors discovered that Mallarte had converted portions of the apartment into bed spaces for eight boarders. Alleging a violation of the lease contract, the lessors demanded Mallarte vacate the premises. When he failed to comply, they filed an ejectment complaint, which was eventually upheld by the City Court, the Regional Trial Court, and the Court of Appeals. The Petition: Mallarte filed a petition for review, arguing that accepting boarders did not constitute subleasing and that the ejectment suit was filed because he refused to agree to a rent increase.
Issue(s)
Whether the act of accepting boarders in a leased apartment constitutes a violation of a stipulation prohibiting subleasing. Whether the lessors have a valid cause of action for the judicial ejectment of the petitioner-lessee.
Ruling
The petition for review is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside, and the ejectment complaint against the petitioner is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether accepting boarders constitutes subleasing: The Court held that accepting boarders does not constitute subleasing. The Court distinguished between subleasing and taking in boarders, emphasizing that subleasing involves a surrender of possession and control of the premises or a portion thereof. Accepting boarders, on the other hand, merely involves providing meals and/or lodging for a price, without the lessee relinquishing his occupancy and possession. The Court cited legal definitions and jurisprudence stating that letting a room for personal occupation to a lodger does not constitute subletting, and that a roomer or lodger is not a tenant in the strict legal sense. The Court further noted that restrictions against subletting are construed with utmost jealousy and that permitting lodgers or boarders to occupy rooms is not a subletting. Since neither the law (BP Blg. 25, as amended) nor the contract prohibited accepting roomers, bed spacers, or boarders, the lease was not violated. On the issue of whether the lessors have a valid cause of action for ejectment: Based on the finding that the lease agreement was not violated, the Court ruled that the lessors have no cause of action for the judicial ejectment of the petitioner-lessee. The Court emphasized that the prohibition against subleasing is a restraint on alienation and is strictly construed. The act of accepting boarders, as established, did not fall within the definition of subleasing. Therefore, the conditions for ejectment as stipulated in the lease agreement were not met.
Main Doctrine
The act of accepting boarders or roomers in a leased premises, without the written consent of the lessor, does not constitute a violation of a stipulation prohibiting subleasing, as accepting boarders does not involve a surrender of possession and control of the premises or a portion thereof, which is the essence of subleasing.